This is a guest post by Greg Guenther. Greg has lived in Aylesford for 15 years, where he is active in the neighborhood association and currently serves as a neighborhood representative on the University Neighborhood Advisory Committee.
At a public meeting at Faith Lutheran Church on August 3, Palmer Engineering presented plans for redesigning intersections at South Hanover Street, High Street, Euclid Avenue and Fontaine Road. Three alternate plans were presented and public feedback, commentary and suggestions were solicited. Features of each proposal include green space, bike lanes and increasing pedestrian accessibility with medians, mid-block crossings and narrower intersections.
None of the plans is perfect; overall, they emphasize what Lexington streets generally lack: a respect and consideration for pedestrians and cyclists. Chevy Chase retailers serve as a hub to some of the more walkable neighborhoods in Lexington; ironically, existing streetscapes intimidate pedestrians with their complex traffic patterns and wide intersections. To promote walking, the new plans hope to act as footbridges, connecting the Aylesford, Ashland Park, South Ashland Avenue and Chevy Chase neighborhoods to retail locations. Likewise, new bike lanes would connect existing lanes on Euclid and nearby streets.
Any of the three designs would provide immediate impact for retailers. More broadly, however, if it happens, Euclid would be book-ended by a re-designed Chevy Chase intersection on the east and the revamped Limestone streetscape on the west. Development can become a contagion, which could stimulate needed improvements along the corridor. Certainly, this will not mitigate the destruction caused by the power lines on Euclid, but it could buffer and buttress the neighborhood from further deterioration that could result from the inevitable UK and Kroger expansions.
Some will likely argue that these designs benefit pedestrians by constricting traffic at already busy intersections. Perhaps, but if we are ever to have streets that function for walkers and cyclists, their needs must be considered equally with those of vehicles.
We don’t need to rehash the arguments against auto dependency: obesity, social disconnection, unsustainable resource depletion – we just need to walk more. It may seem that Lexingtonians are slow to take up walking, but waiting for people to start walking before developing walkable streetscapes is like waiting for cars to drive across a field before building a road. Walkable streetscapes encourage pedestrian use. The phrases “pedestrian friendly” or “bicycle friendly” relegate walkers and riders to hobbyists, implying that such activity is a leisure pursuit rather than an alternate mode of transportation.
We never use the term “auto friendly” when describing streets and roads, because we demand that roads be functionally designed and maintained for vehicular safety and unimpeded movement. Streets with potholes, narrow lanes, and obstructions evoke the ire of taxpayers and instigate road rage. But pedestrians negotiate such barriers daily, from random obstacles to blatantly dangerous conditions. Good design is the first course of corrective action. If a design impedes a walker or cyclist, reject it.
Before automatically reacting to a pro-pedestrian/cyclist design as one that inherently impedes traffic, or cynically suggesting that public input invariably falls on deaf ears, we should remember that several years ago Euclid was a four-lane road that traffic engineers proposed widening to a five-lane thoroughfare. Energetic public reaction resulted in the current configuration with the center turn lane and two bicycle lanes. The public’s preferred design actually aided, rather than impeded, traffic flow. Crossing Euclid became safer and easier for vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. Fewer lanes thwarted what traffic engineers call “induced demand,” whereby building wider, multi-lane roads actually attracts more vehicles and increases, rather than reduces, congestion. This is the power of design, and good design can likewise create a positive pedestrian “induced demand.”
While drivers prefer empty roads, walkers and cyclists want “congested” sidewalks and bike lanes. There’s safety in numbers, and camaraderie too.
About 50, mostly middle-aged, Lexingtonians attended the August 3 public meeting. The project needs funding as well as more public input and attention. A second meeting is tentatively scheduled for September 2 at 5:30 pm (the location has yet to be determined). It would be good to have better representation from cyclist groups and a wider cross section of neighborhood residents. If you are interested in a more walkable, more bikable city, please plan to attend and stay involved as we move toward seeking funding for the improvements.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
I like everything you had to say about this! I think that we will see a big rise in the number of bikes and pedestrians in the near future due to global energy constraints and rising prices. I can already re-sell more high quality used bikes than I can find. A local streetscape that is safe and easy for bikes and pedestrians will attract consumers that have ditched their expensive cars to businesses in that area. I’m afraid that we’ll see a day in the not to distant future where the needs of the lower income carless majority will run up against the desire of the wealth to maintain the status quo in regards to roadways. So much federal money went to shovel ready road projects that were designed in the days of seemingly endless supplies of cheap oil. I feel that locally we need to avoid those same mistakes. By design, it should be harder to drive a car somewhere in the city core than to walk or bike there.
I was thinking about the redesign and pedestrian usage as I walked from Morton to Starbucks last weekend. Roundabouts are not pedestrian-friendly. There must be a good way to accomodate the needs of through-traffic; customers of the local businesses; bicyclists and pedestrians.
Nice – wonderful. I would be much much more inclined to walk to that block (and allow my kids to do so) if it were safer. I’m quite worried about the Cassidy / Morton / CKT kid-walkers at that intersection. The casual bike-to-get-Starbucks activity could be much improved.
Bike commuters probably don’t stand to see much improvement. Both Fontaine and Tates Creek are hostile to bikes leading away from the intersection East or Southbound. We’ve all found routes via Central/Desha, Alumni, and/or Chinoe to bypass the mess heading that direction.